Unlocking the Curriculum
Johnson et al.
these studies there were no significant differences between the two groups in speech or in
lipreading. Although there are many factors to be considered, e.g., not all deaf parents sign, not all
parents who sign use ASL, etc., (for a review of such considerations, see Quigley & Paul, 1984, p.
18), the overriding difference between these children and those born to hearing parents is early
exposure to a natural language and lifelong communication with competent language users about
topics of everyday life. In addition, these children are born to parents fundamentally like
themselves, from whom they can acquire a social identity (Erting, 1982; Johnson & Erting, in
press). These facts combine to suggest that early acquisition of sign language from competent
adults may provide an advantage in the acquisition of academic skills and that it does not hinder
the acquisition of English speech or literacy skills.
A possible explanation for this pattern is that deaf children of deaf parents, like all hearing
children of hearing parents, are not taught their native language; they acquire it naturally through
exposure to it. Because it is a visual language, a natural sign language provides deaf children with
access to ordinary processes of language acquisition. In addition, evidence from research on
spoken language suggests that bilingualism may enhance certain cognitive characteristics. Hakuta,
for example, in summarizing research on bilingualism, states (1986, p. 35):
Take any group of bilinguals who are approximately equivalent in their L1 [first
language] and L2 [second language] and match them with a monolingual group for
age, socioeconomic level, and whatever other variables you think might confound
your results. Now, choose a measure of cognitive flexibility and administer it to
both groups. The bilinguals will do better.
To the extent that cognitive flexibility is a desirable goal in the education of deaf children,
it may be that the acquisition of both ASL and English may provide an advantage rather than a
obstacle.
For the most part, children from families with deaf members present fewer problems for
deaf education than do those born to all-hearing families. Although there have been only a few
descriptive studies of deaf preschoolers (Erting, 1982; Johnson & Erting, in press), it is evident
that deaf children of deaf parents arrive at school better informed and with better linguistic skills
in both English and ASL. But the general problem of low expectations in the system and lack of
access to the curriculum remains even for these children. Thus, although they tend to perform at a
level higher than their deaf age mates, as mentioned earlier, their level of performance is still not
at a level equivalent to their hearing peers.
In those school programs where children are allowed to sign freely and where there are
some children from families with deaf members, the language used by most of the children is
American Sign Language. It is unlikely that they learn ASL from their teachers, who generally
have only limited competence in the use of ASL or who probably do not use it in the classroom if
they do know it. Woodward and Allen (1987) found that, of 1,888 teachers surveyed, only 140
reported using ASL in the classroom. Further queries determined that only six of these 140 teachers
could unequivocally be said to use ASL. As a result, the language-competent children themselves
and competent adult signers with whom the children come in contact are able to undertake a large
part of the socializing process for the children of hearing parents. Thus, in such situations, children
of hearing parents usually learn American Sign Language from their peers. Johnson and Erting (in
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No. 2 – Fall/Winter 2018
101